scholarly journals Prospective analysis of phoned potassium results and what general practitioners do with them: a pilot study

Author(s):  
Jennifer S Johnstone ◽  
Michael J Murphy

Background Communicating abnormal results to requesting clinicians is an essential part of clinical authorisation. Guidance from the Royal College of Pathologists on communication of critical/unexpected results is issued as ‘advice to pathologists’. The 2017 guidelines advise rapid communication of serum potassium results ≤2.5 mmol/L and ≥6.5 mmol/L. Little is known about what happens after the results have been communicated. We wished to establish answers to the following questions: Are phoned results acted on? If so, when? What is the outcome of any action taken? Methods A prospective study of primary care potassium results authorised out of hours was undertaken. Potassium requests from primary care were retrieved from the laboratory information management system. The potassium result was recorded, along with other data. Data were analysed for potassium results that were validated out of hours (18:00 h–08:00 h). Results Over six months, 220 potassium results <3.1 mmol/L and >5.9 mmol/L from primary care were validated out of hours. A subset of these (27) were phoned to the general practice out of hours ‘hub’, and 16 patients referred to hospital out of hours, on account of the potassium results. The remaining potassium results phoned out of hours were acted on subsequently. Conclusions Critical potassium results were phoned urgently and are acted on, although not always out of hours. For potassium results phoned out of hours, the most frequent action was to refer to hospital out of hours. Different actions occurred for similar potassium results, reflecting the fact that actions taken and their urgency depend on the patient, the clinician and the practice policy for handling results.

2015 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 16-25 ◽  
Author(s):  
Markus List ◽  
Michael Franz ◽  
Qihua Tan ◽  
Jan Mollenhauer ◽  
Jan Baumbach

Summary Electronic laboratory notebooks (ELNs) are more accessible and reliable than their paper based alternatives and thus find widespread adoption. While a large number of commercial products is available, small- to mid-sized laboratories can often not afford the costs or are concerned about the longevity of the providers. Turning towards free alternatives, however, raises questions about data protection, which are not sufficiently addressed by available solutions. To serve as legal documents, ELNs must prevent scientific fraud through technical means such as digital signatures. It would also be advantageous if an ELN was integrated with a laboratory information management system to allow for a comprehensive documentation of experimental work including the location of samples that were used in a particular experiment. Here, we present OpenLabNotes, which adds state-of-the-art ELN capabilities to OpenLabFramework, a powerful and flexible laboratory information management system. In contrast to comparable solutions, it allows to protect the intellectual property of its users by offering data protection with digital signatures. OpenLabNotes effectively closes the gap between research documentation and sample management, thus making Open- LabFramework more attractive for laboratories that seek to increase productivity through electronic data management.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document